About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35
clinton and the sexes them. it was appalling my husband said you are making it up. but it is worse than you think. we really did have some of that. >> is more complicated for women to present themselves physically because there is a lack of a legacy. to say this is what a woman president looks like from what she stands for or plans to do as president. >> it is not just something that affects women is against people that are short but those candidates as opposed to the men candidates. they will get attention because of his way to. the he will not rule and -- be ruled out. a woman might be. >> a good example was elizabeth edwards burger she was ridiculed for her weight and appearance even after she died some appointed to her appearance. it is a good example of the scrutiny they feel when they run for office or as the spouse's candidate. >> i cannot remember a single time someone said why is the president not wearing a suit or why as governor romney wearing jeans? i had a candidate who was known for wearing gucci loafers. that is the only example i can think of. >> jimmy carter wore the bl
clinton, worked under w. bush. they certainly saw differences in the presidencies, but they weren't necessarily ideological foes of the president. but they saw the operation, the planning of the operation stopped her stall three times in 2011 alone and they were credulous and asked why. with the valerie garrett didn't like the idea is a close adviser to the mentor and the first lady. i want to be clear. it's not that she ordered them to stop. as to the normal chain of command. they should stop working on it but not great when asked why commences the reason i came back. >> host: was valerie garrett involved in any of the discussions with hillary clinton, robert gates and land another? was she in the room quiet >> and clear probably not. there were a lot of discussions between valerie garrett and the president himself. remember barack obama has started about valerie garrett, he told "the new york times" in 2009, i never make an important decision without talking to valerie garrett first. he said that he meets with her two to three times a day. if you look away his visitor logs, you'
at the news coverage of sarah palin and clinton and the sexism that was there. and it was appalled i know when i had my husband read it to edit it before we send off he said you're making his stuff up. chris matthews did not say that, or the photographer, -- you know, and i think it is far worse than we may be think it is. and these women who we studied really did have some of that stuff. >> i think it's more confident for women to present themselves physically in public because there is no uniform because there's a lack of a legacy. we haven't had a woman that we can say this is what a woman president looks like. so the press tends to cover her appearance before the cover what she stands for and what she plans to do as president. >> there's discrimination based on adherents generally. it's not just something that affects women. there's discrimination against people who are overweight, discrimination against people who are short. but it seems to be particularly intends for women candidates as opposed to men candidates. chris christie, you know, should he have run or should he run will certainl
is hidden. i remember for a book i did called "the agenda" on bill clinton, and it was about his economic plan. i interviewed him once, and it was on background. but he's talked about it, so i have talked about it. and you go into to the oval office. this was early 1994, and clinton drills you with this eye contact that is absolutely a gravitational force. i've never seen anyone maintain eye contact like bill clinton. and to a -- and it's unblinking. and he just stares and, of course, it creates a sense of intimacy, it slows time down, and i remember thinking this eye contact is amazing, and somebody later suggested to me, said, well, he wanted to be president ever since he was 5. [laughter] and he decided to contribute all organs in the body to the task. [laughter] including the eyes. [laughter] and it's, you can drain yourself. you just don't -- you can train yourself, you just don't blink. so we're going through there, and i thought, oh, this is a great interview. and he's so focused. i each started thinking, oh -- i each started thinking, oh, he realizes how brilliant my questions are
is our guest. here's the book, "you got to dance with them what brung you: politics in the clinton years." thank you very much. .. at 8:00 the 77 at book awards held annually at clove -- cleveland. weekly "of a words program ." the partisan. visit booktv.org for more on the weekend's television schedule. from the heritage foundation in washington, d.c., conservative scholar charles kessler presents the thought on presidency and what he deems are the quote, fatal contradiction, end quote, of liberalism. he was there for about an hour. >> good evening. i'm matthew, vice president of american studies here at the heritage foundation. we are in for a real treat. here we are approaching election. which pretended to be a water shed, recognized by both political parties as turning point. a change debate about the role of government, free market to the future trajectory of our nation. in that debate, campaign commercials and political rhetoric abound. sound bytes, daily reactions dominate the news cycle. luckily for us in the miss -- mist of this a serious thinker wrote a serious book. having bee
president clinton's high in the sky plan to spend $6 billion for clean energy. was dead on arrival. obama got $90 billion in his first months before his staff could find bathrooms in the west wing. just ridiculous. the stimulus was pouring unprecedented rivers of cash and renewables and energy efficiency and every imaginable form, advanced biofuel and electric vehicles and cutting edge research, smarter grid, cleaner coal, factories to make that green stuff in the united states. it was by far the biggest energy bill in history. kind of got me curious what else was in the stimulus everyone was laughing about. i did some investigative reporting with a google search. i learned that the stimulus had also launched race to the top which was a real moment. have you heard of race to the top? there was a huge deal in the education reform world that was supposed to transform public schools. i had no idea it was the stimulus program. did any of you? any way, it became clear there was a huge story can in plain view. most of the stimulus was standard keynesian stimulus, pumping money into the economy
gorbachev. what do you think about? >> is that because bill clinton has been such a great president they elected in great part, or is there something, i want to say, almost about a man who could getaway with things over and over again? >> she clearly hated being not others just bill clinton's wife. finally, last november 1998, hillary clinton showed the world what she could do in the campaign trail without him. political mastery, every bit as dapper lee ♪ >> for castro, freedom stirs education. and if literacy alone was the yardstick on the kivu would rank as one of the freest nations on earth. the literacy rate, 96%. >> the new speaker was on the floor for a time holding her six-year-old grandson, although i give you directions on how events were to proceed good it seems the ultimate in multitasking. taking care of the children in the country. >> people apology to savior, the messiah, messenger change. >> i would like to say that in some ways, barack obama is the first president since george washington to be taking a step down into the oval office. >> we know that wind can make a
involved in it the silly analysis of what happened after clinton raises tax rates or clinton drastically lowered the capital gains tax and that was where most of the new revenues came. but in general, fifty nations around the world have reduced their tax breaks sin wealthy and poverty was published. and draysly reduced the tax rates. not of these have flat tax an in all the countries of revenues of boom there hasn't been a big crisis of spending and estonia. there's a vast boom in estonia with the 12% flat tax and the fact is that sup ply side economics is booming around the world. it's only in the united states that some souls are shrinking from there economic of enterprise. >> what's your analysis of what's happening in donald rumsfeld would call old europe. >> old europe is flawing for the indulgent due luges of the welfare staid. they have all accepted again on centralized government and thus have destroyed vat l of their assets. when you detroit value of your assets ultimate i are the human being who would make your economy go, their investments and creation and work effort and make
this what was really just a mismatch against hillary clinton and we are literally on the airplane in mid flight. it was a crazy time. and i remember in those early day i remember the candidate coming through headquarter and he was walking from the back of the room. he was wearing black societies heading my way. i couldn't focus on him. all i could think of it's just a big desk farm with open computer boxes. how are we going if i the space. the walls were white. just like this. the sunlight was coming through the win go. we didn't have campaign sign age. we didn't have anything to put on the walls get. he's walking toward me, and i was thinking, i remember this time because it's really one of the last times i think i talked to him when he didn't have secret service detail. and i'm sure his life changed from that moment. i was thinking, i look back on that and think how much my life changed too. he was tethered to the blackberry that was constantly a stream of things coming a me. it was the -- you know, i'll tell you one more story about the first moment. michelle obama. i met michelle oba
the trial and you remember the chief justice rehnquist presiding over the impeachment trial of bill clinton. but with the chief justice will is and how the chief justice is to be appointed in the federal circuit court of course the appeal if you become the chief judge by seniority so maybe what have come become the justice by seniority but no, president george washington thought otherwise and actually nominated a chief justice in that case and by separate commission, so that established the pattern some nominated to be the chief justice through the ranks. beyond that, how the court of reeds and what it conceives of as it's a distraction. many high courts around the world can give what we would call advisory opinions to the executive branch of their government or the legislative branch can say that, you know, if we get such and such would it pass muster and we say yes or no and if the answer is no they go back and redo it and bring it back again and it works that way. our core to very early on established it wouldn't wish you advisory opinions that there had to be an actual case or controver
't to be. bill clinton butchers of beijing. he ends up forging a pretty strong relationship with china. so i think you have to discount a lot of the rhetoric and a lot of what you hear about, about priorities at this point. and probably conclude that when they do get in office that the harold macmillan words will probably drive things more than anything else. and that's defense, my dear boy, events. and then we get back to what you are saying. what will be their management style? what will be their ability a stunt history to respond to those events as they arise. spoonbill, what leadership is have you picked up? >> i think we have an incumbent president so presumably we know how he will be inclined to cover but i suppose one could argue that maybe not becoming, obama took over and over nine in a very unusual circumstance, huge majority in both houses, wind at his back but also apparently failed administration, huge financial crisis. he did various things we could second guess them or not, but rahm emanuel is as chief of staff, they're presumably because he understood how to manage congress
agree to get big compromises on these issues. >> can i add the role of history suggests the clinton and ronald reagan the second term as the productive term, the big achievement so it's hard to know whether the republican party will -- where they will push the blame if that happens, but the question is how they decide to spend the next four years and i think it's very hard to tell but there is some hope in looking back at both clinton and reagan. >> he was also a far right to limit took running the republican party at the time whoever they equivalent was a time and. but in fact he wasn't. life was a little more complicated by the fearful analogy. >> he raised taxes -- >> i think that's why the parties in opposition tend to be less responsible than parties of power. i think you probably agree. >> agree from your point of view i can think of the times when the other party the of irresponsibly in opposition and the question as it seems to me it from the is elected and you have the party that you think would be responsible and is in the position they have to govern and we will see what
class believes. the things that president clinton used, balanced approach. opportunity and, i thought that governor romney really didn't do anything to dissuade the general public from the view that he would like to go back to the days of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and hope that this time, instead of growing deficits, and growing unemployment, that it grows jobs. so governor romney really needed a game changer tonight. i hate to say this but i find myself agreeing with chris christie. governor romney really needed to turn the world upside down. he really need ad game changer tonight. i think you would be sore pressed to find that magic moment that was the game-changer tonight. and, so, that was my view in watching it anyway. i also thought the president did a very good job finally nailing governor romney down to admitting he does want to turn medicare into a voucher program. i thought the president pushed back on that very effectively, when he said, hey, if you're 55 you might want to listen to this. i'm still not sure exactly what governor romney was saying about his promise o
within herself. bill and hillary clinton had a warm relationship with the "-- queen as well. like other presidents clinton was impressed with what he described as the clever manner in which he discussed public issues, probing the for information and insight without venturing too far into a expressing her own political views. he observed that the circumstance of her birth, she might have been a successful politician and diplomat. as it was, he said, she had to be both but without quite seeming to be either. george w. bush got off on the right foot, literally, with the queen during her 1991 visit. the president's 44-year-old eldest son was wearing custom-made cowboy boots to his parents' private luncheon upstairs of the white house. the texas rangers, is that on the boots, the queen asked? note -- no, ma'am, the young george joked. god save the queen. she left the nest, are you the black sheep in the family? i guess so, he said. the queen replied to all families have them. he asked, whose horse? don't answer that, said his mother, which let the queen escape from the conversation. the 43rd
to dance with them that brung you" politics in the clinton years. the book is a collection of them is ivins's collinson discusses several topics including the financial corruption of the american political system and what it means to be a texan. an encore presentation of that interview now on booktv. c-span: molly ivins, where did you get the title, "you got to dance with them what brung you"? >> guest: it's one of the oldest sayings in politics, 'you got to dance with them what brung ya.' and what it means is that when you get to pu--when you get to office, when you get to public office, you vote with the folks who put you there. and that used to mean your constituents, the people who voted for you. but more and more what it means is you vote with the special interests who put up the money to get you to public office. and part of what this book is about is the corruption of the american political system by money. it's not as though american politics had ever been pristine and pure. of course not. money has always been there. but money nowadays is the dominant factor by such an enormous mar
comprises on the big issues. >> can i add, i mean, a little history can clinton and rage. the second term was the productive term. the big achievement. it's hard no know whether the republican party will -- where they will push the blame if that happens. but the question is how they decide to spend the next four years. and i think it's very hard to tell. but there is some hope in looking back at both clinton and reagan. >> reagan was considered a far-right lunatic running a far right republican party, by the way, at the time. by whoever the equivalent was at the time. maybe it was tom freedman. in fact he wasn't. >>, i mean, life is more complicated despite the analogy. >> he raced. he raised taxes when he needed to . >> he did a lot of things and, you know, that's why i think parties in opposition tend to be less responsible than parties in power. i think you probably agree with that. >> what's different. >> difference in agreeing from your point of view. i can think of times when the other party also behavedder responsely in the opposition and the question is, it seems to me is if romne
clinton. he was to be here with his daughter elizabeth. i know we have the daughter here. ambassador wolfgang, the ambassador to the united states during a very tough important period in the relationship is here in the front row. he is also currently chair of the munich security forum, something i have attended for 11 years and henry kissinger has attended for many years and gave a wonderful speech here at the wilson center on the e.u., a u.s. partnership just a couple days ago. earlier this year the wilson center joined forces with national public radio to create this public series we call the national conversation. our hope is that this series will provide the public with new opportunities to engage in much needed civil discourse free from sin. let me try that on you again. civil discourse free from spin. imagine that in this election season especially the day before the first debate. in the safe political space the wilson center provides. it is an honor to introduce my friend, dr. henry kissinger, who will be giving a brief keynote on the china's upcoming once in a decade leadersh
there be a committee to look at the decision but on the today secretary clinton says this is a mistake. if you do with the enemy in the middle east you don't play in the middle east, jerusalem or be an up. if you went to convince someone but in my book we have to take action but i think what has happened to in the last month as a decision our friend in canada took to close the embassy in tehran. embassy in tehran. we should have done that years ago. in two weeks time we are traveling again to the u.s. but then go back to ram with the race for the nuclear bomb. if iran becomes nuclear we are on the front lines. listen to what the people are saying. very clearly. we will wipe out israel. when the united states of america then we go after this sunday people, the christians to send you a message. you have to wake up many people think not in my backyard. if it is it is really is a year backyard. what is the connection between hezbollah and iran and venezuela? why do they work together and they fly a the slides from here to caracas? hatred of the shared values the american values of what you represent.
at the decision in the u.n. but also it might not be popular here in the u.s. and only to date secretary clinton said a few hours ago that we should not put any red lights to iran. this is a mistake because when you deal with the enemies in the middle east, you don't play according to the rules of washington, d.c., jerusalem, or the and. it's a different language, and if you want to convince someone in iran to stop, the nuclear race, you have to take action. in my book i write it very directly that it's not an afterthought. we need to take action and we have seen that sanctions, not crippling sanctions. i think what happened the last month in the decision that our friend in canada took to close the embassy in tehran. it is a great decision. we should have done it years ago because the people in iran, look at what's happening here in two weeks time, ahmadinejad will become a contiguous. he will go to the u.n., deliver a nice speech, but then he will go back to iran and he will continue with the race to build a nuclear bomb. in my book i speak a lot about israel, but the fact -- [inaudible] becaus
. the first thing is we were in the middle of an election campaign, and candidate bill clinton was comparing beijing to baghdad. and this was right at the time when china was moving from baghdad to paris. maybe i'm overstating the case a little bit, but that's essentially what was happening. i mean, this was a dramatic shift in china, and the u.s. government paid absolutely no attention to it. it had no impact on the policies of the clinton administration when it took office. and, of course, since i was the american ambassador to china this confronted me with problems with an american government that had one view of china, that china was already moving in a different direction, and that created some contradictions in trying to carry out my instructions faithfully. but i think this time, you have something that goes of that. clearly are the bush eli a fair has exposed that china's political system is not different from others. leaders struggle for power. they have their own ambitions. some succeed, some come crashing down, as in the case of bush eli. so we shouldn't assume that just because c
. it was the law passed unanimously by congress signed by president clinton in 1993 to restore the scope of religious freedom protection that existed under the free exercise clause which we were railing against. withstand back in place, struck down by the states in 1997 but the federal government, mandated by federal law, we already had two early decisions from district courts involving private plaintiffs or for profit plaintiffs and the issue to address the merits, there were procedural issues because of ongoing regulatory process that might create a sort of interim step in terms of going up and down the court but that actually is going to get resolved between now and august 1st, 2013. the administrative process will be done and the courts will invariably go straight and you will get merit decisions uniformly by the end of next year. >> those that depend on what the administration does and who wins? >> not really. what the administration has put into play is a piece of the problem. and also the constraints they put upon themselves in addressing that limited issue indicates that there is
,000 a year, that we should go back to the race we had when bill clinton was president, when we created 22 million jobs, what from deficit to surplus and created a whole created a lot of millionaires to boot. the reason this is important is because they doing that we can not only reduce the deficit. we can not only encourage job growth of small businesses, but were also to make investments necessary in education or in energy. and we do have a difference when it comes to definitions of small business. under my plan, 97% of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. governor romney says well, those top 3% of the job creators they burdened. under governor romney's definition, as a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small-business. donald trump is a small business. i know donald trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything, but that is how you define small businesses after getting small-business income. that kind of approach i believe will not grow our economy because the only way to pay for without either burdening the middle-class or blowing up our
, form something called the liberty league to deny fdr a second term. and then with bill clinton of course was richard miller gates who funded all the investigations and led to paula jones come on and on, the articles in "the american spectator." but nothing compared to the money and the organization that we have seen on the part of charles and david koch, who are the heads of koch industries. they are the third and fourth richest man in america. we know about bill gates and warren buffett. these are number three and number four, combined wealth of $50 billion. they have put more money and -- by the way i have to say this. they do some good things, particularly david koch was the wealthiest man in new york city. you thought michael bloomberg was. no, it's david koch. but he funded the metropolitan museum of art, cancer research centers around the country. but most of their money goes into political activities. and they are everywhere. the heritage foundation in washington, d.c., koch brothers. the cato institute, when it started, koch brothers. some of you may know now that koch
there will be a committee to look at the decision in the u.n. but also invite the u.s., secretary clinton said only a few hours ago, we should not put any red lines to iran. when you deal with the enemies in the middle east, you don't play according to the rules of washington, d.c., jerusalem or vienna. it is a different ball game. it's a different language. if you want to work with somebody in iran to stop the nuclear race, you have to take action. and in my book i worried very directly that it is not enough to talk. we need to take action. and we have seen that sanctions are not crippling sanctions. and i think what happened the last month in the decision that our friend in canada took to close the embassy in tehran, it is a brave decision. we should have done it years ago. because the people in iran, they look at what's happening here. in two weeks' time, ahmadinejad will be traveling again to the u.s., he will go to the u.n., he will deliver a nice speech, but then he will go back to iran, and he will continue with the race to build that nuclear bomb. in my book i spoke a lot about israel, but it aff
would be able to respond. this one from hillary rodham clinton, secretary of state and the second letter of thanks from barack obama about the same topic. when he gives speeches and he says, people ask him what is your most memorable part of your career he says other people think the most memorable part of my career is the baseball scandal, the steroids in baseball. those records are not here. he was also involved in the 9/11 red cross fund distribution. those records were not here because he was working in the capacity of those organizations so whatever those files are -- so you wind up with congressional papers sometimes too. [inaudible] >> what the booktv all weekend to see more of our recent visit to augusta maine or go for more information on this and other cities visited a ibook to these local content vehicle go to c-span.org/local content. >> coming up, booktv% after words an hour-long program where we invite guest host to interview authors. this week, legal journalist john jenkins and his in his book, "the partistan" the life of william rehnquist. in it the publisher "cq" press d
, they built the repeal. the repeal, for those of you that don't know, was signed by bill clinton as president, helping to deregulate. what did we have? the taxes on the rich were discontinued. the regulations were discontinued. what is it that we saw. we saw that by not changing the organization of capitalist enterprises, we left in place people would be incentives and resources to do everything they are going to achieve in the depression. it is sort of like winning a war, but leaving the other army in place with all of its armaments. knowing that they have a lot of resentments about how it ended up. they might, you know, use their weapons to try again. if you leave in place a corporate capitalist structure, a small group of major shareholders who own the shares in their hands, they therefore select the board of directors and and remember what a board of directors doesn't every corporation? it decides what you produce, however pursuits, were to produce, and what to do with the profits. were americans, it is a fundamental and moral political issue. here we are in a country, after all, which cl
to respond. from hillary rodham clinton as the secretary of state and a second letter of thanks from barack obama for the same topic. >> when you give speeches and he says people ask him what is your most memorable part of your career he says i would have to say that other people think the most memorable part of my career is the baseball scandal. those records are not here. he was involved in the red cross fund distributions because he was working in the capacity of those organizations so they apply in other places. the congressional papers end up with congressional records, too and they have to create the institutions if they want to pull the whole picture together. >> coverage continues here on booktv. >> we are in our public reading room. we of patrons doing genealogical research and personal computers and looking for good works and we are going into these main authors collection and in the early 1920's henry is the state librarian at the time started collecting books by the writers trying to get them signed whenever possible, and it's grown into this. in fact we also have an annex to th
clinton arrived, like a knife turning. we fly to paris, but we know vilest sign of the chaos forever. it all meant out when his state. sometimes, when i looked up for the curtains, starting onto the emptiness, i was the old berlin. i would say that i am although class on our streets scattered. with a messing it up and when we drafted over to the curtains, it's like cooking mom on a carnival. crowds in the firelight, broken bottles. we come down after a minute. it was like walking on a gravel path. all of them shares clinching with each step. the synagogue of the block was on fire. we watched firemen standing with their backs to the playing, i'm on all the other buildings to keep the fire from spreading. a fire light was shining on the wet street. the hose water running into the drain. here and there, i seen teeth growing like opals on the black cobblestone. thank you very much. [applause] >> beautiful, thank you. david livingstone smith. david livingstone smith has long been a student of some of humankind spacer impulses. this 2004 book, why we like him in the evolutionary roots of d
it with welfare benefits however this time abacus joined by governors congress and the clinton administration agreed that a significant infusion of new childcare funds were necessary if low-income women were going to face increase work requirements. this led to a second version of the senate bill that included a 4 billion-dollar increase in childcare funds over five years. the tanf bill included a provision that allowed some tanf funding to be transferred to ccpg. it was absolutely clear in that debate that most of the low-income women expected to work were not going going to earn enough to pay for childcare. this is still true. the battle over quality was eliminated. the governors leading the welfare discussion and many republicans in in the house wanted to completely eliminate the minimum standards in the quality set aside. after a long fight we wanted bipartisan support. maintain both that we lost the requirement in the market rate. there was no meaningful discussion of improvement over those two years. with these new funds in additional funding later in the clinton administration states
clinton and i will ever worked closely together and then barbara bush was refrained in the fifth son. [laughter] now he works with president george w. bush as well. at that time i was interviewing president bush is when i was doing a series of pieces on the president and the constitution and the same set of interviews i interviewed president ford and its the last time i saw hampshire and he said you know, i want to see what's going on in washington after his years in the house of representatives. when i was gonna norti lever of the house and you're father, my father was the majority leader of the house he said when we were a minority and majority leader they go down to feed press club or something and solomon say willie going to argue about clarke's piece said there's a legitimate d date. we genuinely disagree about the means to an end. and it was partisan. for heaven's sake we were the leaders of the party but then we get back and our best friends and go back to the hill and are able to be civil with each other, have a drink together and be very good friends. they were such good fri
minimal with the first ladies, other than hillary clinton. but i think ann romney was quoted the other day by radio iowa saying about the criticism, stop it, this is hard. and i got a lot of e-mails about that, either when we did something on the blog, bearing from coming in, good for her to, doesn't she get it? was another one, keep to can you imagine if michelle obama had said that? people would've been angry. i thought it was a very, i think was probably not something the campaign as a structure would've wanted as a statement on the because it's not their message. but i thought it was a very human thing. she was talking about her husband, she is experienced with getting beat up. i guess the response to that is you chose to run for office and yes, it is hard. what we demand from our candidates is a lot in the country. even for the criticism that ron is getting about not doing enough in terms of events. he is doing a tremendous number of fund-raising events. it's incredibly hard and incredibly grueling. i can't imagine watching my husband go through it. my husband has a similar reaction i
. we had a government shut down. newt gingrich i clinton. once the government shut down, the pressure on both sides was so intense there was a deal in less than three weeks. the pressure, if we go into january, will be far greater than it was then because the economic consequences and the market consequences are more significant. i think it's inconceivable that if we go into january, there won't be a settlement in january, early february at the latest. we hit the debt ceiling in february anyway. there has to be a settlement. somebody has to blink, probably both sides blink to some degree. i've talked a little bit to people in financial markets in new york about how they think the markets would react to all of this. the reaction i've got is there's a lot of nervousness, a lot of volatility in the markets in january. if there is a deal in a few weeks, and any deal clearly makes retroactive to january 1st, the tax cuts continued, and we'll remove sequesteration, then what i'm told is in the interim the damage really won't be that significant. now, for fiscal hawks, many of us have been s
sazzer. is he here? no? our former ambassador to china under president clinton. he was to be here with his cautious elizabeth. i know -- his daughter, elizabeth. i know his daughter's here. ambassador wolfgang who was ambassador to the united states during a very tough and important period in our relationship. he's here in the front row. he is also currently chair of the munich security forum, something i have attended for 11 years and henry kissinger has attended for many, many years and gave a wonderful speech here at the wilson center on the e.u. partnership just a couple days ago. earlier this year, the wilson center joined forces to create this public event series we call the national conversation. our hope is that this series will provide the public with new opportunities to engage in much-needed civil discourse free from spin. let me try that one on you again. laugh civil discourse free from spin. imagine that in this election season, especially on the day before the first debate. in the safe political space that the wilson center provides. it is an honor to introduce my fr
, and let me quote president clinton, it takes an awful lot of breast to so much accuse me of doing something they have done twice. >> moderator: senator heller? heller: i never heard so and give an answer what they said they didn't do it and then said they did in the same spell. the of the year, continue to tell the light of your even with confidence. is still the light of the year. she talks about the ryan budget. she talks to bring it to the fore. all it wants is -- and when are the ryan budget was going to pass. what we need is a democrat budget. we couldn't get a democrat budget out of the united states center. we couldn't get the majority leader to have a budget hearing. couldn't happen. i don't feel like have to explain this to my own opponent. bunch of republican budget, a democrat budget and you bring them together and you solve the issues. that's my goal. i want solutions. but you can have solutions if one side is not going to talk. >> moderator: thank you. diego has the next question. he will attest to congresswoman congresswoman shelley berkley. >> in january 2007, the t
back on. i will turn it over to jeff and then we'll go to randy and then george comes back, clinton's up once we have him back online. >> nic, thank you but it's an honor for me to be are speaking of old home week. i started working on deregulation issue of the american advice institute in june 1979. so it's great for me to be back after a long time. i think that the paper that greg and judge bork have done is really very excellent and i think rick has done a great job preventing -- present the cages in which wages and. i'd like to use my time to expand on three aspects of the issue that i think are pertinent. all of these are aspects that the paper touches on to one degree or another. but i'd like to call them out and drill down just a little bit on this reach characteristics of high-tech markets and have impact the way we think about the google issue. and those our first modularity and in a platform competition. secondly, the notion of multi-sidedness, which greatest talk about. and thirdly, diamond is a. so let's think about modularity and into platform competition. i think the p
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35